A new player in the music streaming business

This is going to fly in the face of those who say the music industry is locking streaming services out of the online streaming business. Sony has already rolled out a music streaming subscription service in Europe on Wednesday, and it will be coming to North America next year. Music Unlimited will be available on the PS3 platform first, and spread to Sony's other products such as mobile devices later.

It's a move in the right direction (sort of)... I strongly suspect that one of the aims of the music industry is to cut Apple's dominance and also not allow Google to get dominant, which is why they are letting other companies get the foothold on streaming first...

A few points:

Is the music available mostly Sony's catalog or is there wide support from other labels?

Allowing me to stream unlimited music on TVs, PS3s and Computers is a first step, but is way behind the desire of users to stream music on their Smartphones & Tablets.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see a lot more streaming services gaining traction in the next year...

It's a move in the right direction (sort of)... I strongly suspect that one of the aims of the music industry is to cut Apple's dominance and also not allow Google to get dominant, which is why they are letting other companies get the foothold on streaming first...

Ajani, you really need to cut the music industry conspiracy crap, it is unfounded, and you have absolutely no proof to support the claims.

A few points:

Is the music available mostly Sony's catalog or is there wide support from other labels?

With a 6 million song catalog, it would be hard to believe that it is Sony own catalog only.

Allowing me to stream unlimited music on TVs, PS3s and Computers is a first step, but is way behind the desire of users to stream music on their Smartphones & Tablets.

That is already in their plan. However, at this point streaming is most common on computers, as smartphones and tablets are used mainly for video at this point, at least according to NDP and Broadcast magazine.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see a lot more streaming services gaining traction in the next year...

If anyone wants in, it is there for the takers. The music industry is not shutting anyone out at this point.

Ajani, you really need to cut the music industry conspiracy crap, it is unfounded, and you have absolutely no proof to support the claims.

With a 6 million song catalog, it would be hard to believe that it is Sony own catalog only.

That is already in their plan. However, at this point streaming is most common on computers, as smartphones and tablets are used mainly for video at this point, at least according to NDP and Broadcast magazine.

If anyone wants in, it is there for the takers. The music industry is not shutting anyone out at this point.

RE my music industry conspiracy theories: perhaps the real question is why so many persons (myself included) have such a dim view of the industry? If the view is both unfounded and wrong (as you believe) then clearly the industry is in dire need of doing something to boost its public image... All we see (regular consumers) are insistence on heavy royalties and DRM schemes - both of which only punish legitimate purchasers of music... So we have no reason to believe the industry has any interest in doing anything other than screwing us...

Also the service sounds like more Pandora style nonsense rather than truly giving you freedom to listen to exactly the song you want, when you want:

To use Music Unlimited, customers will be charged 3.99 pounds (about $6) per month for basic service or 9.99 pounds (about $15) a month for the premium version. Like Pandora, Music Unlimited lets people say whether they like a track or not. Based on those responses, the service tailors the upcoming playlist to make it more appealing to the respective user's musical tastes. Sony also said that people can have an "unlimited" number of song skips on the ad-free service.

RE my music industry conspiracy theories: perhaps the real question is why so many persons (myself included) have such a dim view of the industry?

Perhaps because you read too many opinions of the online press, especially from computer based pundits who believe that everything on the web should be free. Their non stop assault on DRM, and the music industry going after pirates(which seems like David versus Goliath) both contribute to the poor rep the industry has gotten lately.

If the view is both unfounded and wrong (as you believe) then clearly the industry is in dire need of doing something to boost its public image...

The only thing that will boost its public image is to give songs away for free. Until they do, they will always seem like demons to you, and everyone else.

All we see (regular consumers) are insistence on heavy royalties and DRM schemes - both of which only punish legitimate purchasers of music... So we have no reason to believe the industry has any interest in doing anything other than screwing us.

This is BS. Regular consumers don't have an issue with DRM, because there is no DRM on CD's. There is a ton of downloadable music out there with no DRM. This is a red herring point you continue to raise over and over, and it really is a non issue these days.

Also the service sounds like more Pandora style nonsense rather than truly giving you freedom to listen to exactly the song you want, when you want:

Itunes already covers that area and has a lock on it pretty much. There is no point when you come this late in the game to try and compete with Apple, you will lose your shirt if you do. This makes good business sense, and I am sure that you know this.

I'm sure the Pandora style approach is based heavily on a survey of customer wants and not on what the music industry will allow

No you are not sure of this, as you have nothing to support this surety. Sony made this decision themselves(if you read the article), because they saw no point in trying to compete with Apple who has control of 70% of the market. Between Apple and Amazon, 79% of the market is basically wrapped up. Why spend a ton of money rolling out a itunes style business just to capture 20% or less of the market? Combine that with a market that is been totally flat this year, and has not shown significant growth in the last two years. It just does not make sense to open a music store in this kind of environment.

One thing is for certain Ajani, you don't understand how the music industry works, and it certainly does not work like you think it does. The music industry does not stop anyone from opening a online music store, but the business environment certain can. Your continued parroting on what the music industry doesn't allow is not going to make a mis-truth suddenly become a truth.

1) Allow full 16bit and 24bit song downloads. Not compressed MP3s
2) Make an interface software better than iTune. Something that runs quickly w/ or w/o the extra BS.
3) Allow a one time streaming demo of a full album/song.
4) Incorporate all the small/unlabeled artist that are out there.
5) Organize and suggest bands/artist to users based off their downloads/quires.

1) Allow full 16bit and 24bit song downloads. Not compressed MP3s
2) Make an interface software better than iTune. Something that runs quickly w/ or w/o the extra BS.
3) Allow a one time streaming demo of a full album/song.
4) Incorporate all the small/unlabeled artist that are out there.
5) Organize and suggest bands/artist to users based off their downloads/quires.

Works for me. But be sure not to make any money at it because if you do the big players will either buy you out and mess it all up, or hammer you into the ground. If anyone thinks they are going to invent a new and better way to download music (and be profitable at it) they are going to run into the long knives of the powers that run the show. Anyone woh says otherwise just doesn't understand how the world REALLY works.

Perhaps because you read too many opinions of the online press, especially from computer based pundits who believe that everything on the web should be free. Their non stop assault on DRM, and the music industry going after pirates(which seems like David versus Goliath) both contribute to the poor rep the industry has gotten lately.

The only thing that will boost its public image is to give songs away for free. Until they do, they will always seem like demons to you, and everyone else.

This is BS. Regular consumers don't have an issue with DRM, because there is no DRM on CD's. There is a ton of downloadable music out there with no DRM. This is a red herring point you continue to raise over and over, and it really is a non issue these days.

Itunes already covers that area and has a lock on it pretty much. There is no point when you come this late in the game to try and compete with Apple, you will lose your shirt if you do. This makes good business sense, and I am sure that you know this.

No you are not sure of this, as you have nothing to support this surety. Sony made this decision themselves(if you read the article), because they saw no point in trying to compete with Apple who has control of 70% of the market. Between Apple and Amazon, 79% of the market is basically wrapped up. Why spend a ton of money rolling out a itunes style business just to capture 20% or less of the market? Combine that with a market that is been totally flat this year, and has not shown significant growth in the last two years. It just does not make sense to open a music store in this kind of environment.

One thing is for certain Ajani, you don't understand how the music industry works, and it certainly does not work like you think it does. The music industry does not stop anyone from opening a online music store, but the business environment certain can. Your continued parroting on what the music industry doesn't allow is not going to make a mis-truth suddenly become a truth.

Red herring? I mentioned DRM and Royalties and you chose one to attack... So my point remains valid... Only you believe that a download should cost as much as a CD...

In Addition to jacked up download prices, there is also the intellectual dishonesty of constantly touting the estimated number of illegal songs downloaded and claiming that to be the number of lost sales for the industry, which then serves as a basis for requiring more royalties on downloads... Anyone with a basic command of economics or human behavior knows that there is a large difference between what people will consume when it is free versus what they would consume if they had to pay for it... So the Industry has a bad reputation for good reasons - they've earned it... And the continued refusal to treat the public with respect and have an honest discussion only makes the situation worse for the industry...

Also I never said they should try and compete with iTunes, so I have no idea why you brought that into the conversation... It is irrelevant... I am talking about the idea of a personalized radio station versus being able to just play the exact song you want when you want...

Finally, the idea that customers would rather have personalized radio stations than the ability to access a song directly is preposterous... So you can keep using the evidence argument all you want, but that's about as ridiculous as claiming that customers all want the stupid cable packages selected by the cable providers rather than to select exactly the channels they want... Customers don't have a choice... We have to accept what the movie, TV and Music industries give us OR pirate material... Your (you and the rest of the industries) lack of regard for what consumers want is the major reason there are so many problems... So instead of seeing us all as pirates who don't want to pay for content, perhaps you should focus on providing us with the service we want, rather than just trying to force us to accept what you want to give us...

You can say I don't understand the industry all you want. but the fact that the industry is having all these problems means that all you industry insiders don't really understand your own industry... Or you would have solved all these problems a long time ago... So perhaps you should try listening to us consumers instead of lecturing us...

Red herring? I mentioned DRM and Royalties and you chose one to attack... So my point remains valid... Only you believe that a download should cost as much as a CD...

You don't know what the hell I believe, and I have never mentioned what anything should cost. I am acutely aware of how much a typical album costs, and I am also aware that based on your comments, you have no idea how to price a download and still make a profit.

Now I will attack royalties as well just to balance this out. Question. who should decide how much royalties to pay a artist for their work? You? As I have said before, hell no not you. You have no idea of how much work and money it takes to create my song, and as such, you will most assuredly under value my song. BMG and ASCAP decide royalty fees, not the record company, and not the artist themselves(so there is no over valuation as well). The artists don't think they are getting enough(and they know how much work it takes to create the product), and consumers(who don't create a thing) think it is too much. I think if most folks were in the shoes of the artists, they would think like they do. And I think you are in that same boat. You want to ***** and complain, but you haven't the faintest idea about how much someone time is worth.

I as an artist do not want jo blow consumer to decide how much my time and effort is worth, which is why a third party makes that decision, not the record company, and not the artists themselves.

In Addition to jacked up download prices, there is also the intellectual dishonesty of constantly touting the estimated number of illegal songs downloaded and claiming that to be the number of lost sales for the industry, which then serves as a basis for requiring more royalties on downloads... Anyone with a basic command of economics or human behavior knows that there is a large difference between what people will consume when it is free versus what they would consume if they had to pay for it... So the Industry has a bad reputation for good reasons - they've earned it... And the continued refusal to treat the public with respect and have an honest discussion only makes the situation worse for the industry..

I feel like a broken record here. First, the record companies do not establish the price of the download, the vendor does. I have said this so many damn times to you, and you still don't get it. The industry has made some mistakes, but they are not the evil you make them out to be based on your ignorance of the industry. But you are entitled to your opinion (as ignorant as it is), and you have the right to express it.

Also I never said they should try and compete with iTunes, so I have no idea why you brought that into the conversation... It is irrelevant... I am talking about the idea of a personalized radio station versus being able to just play the exact song you want when you want...

You don't seem to have an idea about a great many things. You can go to Pandora and type in the exact song you want to hear, and it will play it, so that already exists. You will be able to do that with Sony's Music Unlimited as well. You can go to Pandora, and type in the genre of music, or the artist, and it will created a personalized radio station that plays tunes that you like. So I am not sure what your beef is.

Finally, the idea that customers would rather have personalized radio stations than the ability to access a song directly is preposterous... So you can keep using the evidence argument all you want, but that's about as ridiculous as claiming that customers all want the stupid cable packages selected by the cable providers rather than to select exactly the channels they want... Customers don't have a choice... We have to accept what the movie, TV and Music industries give us OR pirate material... Your (you and the rest of the industries) lack of regard for what consumers want is the major reason there are so many problems... So instead of seeing us all as pirates who don't want to pay for content, perhaps you should focus on providing us with the service we want, rather than just trying to force us to accept what you want to give us...

Since you seemed to have the pulse of every human listening desires, why don't you go and create what you think the public wants. This is far better than sitting here complaining about what the record companies will or will not allow. Obviously Sony has taken surveys to try and figure out what the consumer wants, and have now created a business model that gives them what they desire. Instead of complaining, why don't you do the same, or do you just like to emulate a empty wagon going down a bumpy road?

You can say I don't understand the industry all you want. but the fact that the industry is having all these problems means that all you industry insiders don't really understand your own industry... Or you would have solved all these problems a long time ago... So perhaps you should try listening to us consumers instead of lecturing us...

Instead of lecturing me about what you THINK other want, why don't you (since you think you know) gather some investors, and create what you THINK others want? You seem to have all the answers locked up in your brain, why don't you put these ideas to good use?

The thing you don't seem to get is that the music industry is a huge ship. Huge ships are not that nimble, and cannot turn on a dime. The changes in the industry have been pretty rapid, and it takes time to figure out what works in this environment. So far, the downloading model does not appear to work. The streaming model does not make much money, and certainly not enough to continue making albums. The industry is in transition right now, and they are trying to figure out what works and what does not. You don't solve anything until you try something, and that is exactly what the music industry has been trying.

What they are getting for all their tries, is a bunch of complaining, stealing, and a bunch of know it all's who say they have the answers to all of the industry's ills. I say put up or shut up. If you think you have the answers to the music industry's ills, start a company that fills the needs of the consumer. You seem to know it all, so you should make a fortune.

People who are against DRM are children who don't understand the way the world works.
PEOPLE who produce music deserve to get paid just like everybody else. No pay, no work.
The Soviet Union tried that and look at how that turned out.A lot of people who hate DRM
wouldn't work a minute for free themselves.
All that being said, its the responsibility of the industry to make DRM as invisible as possible,
and with decent safeguards against illegal copying established, make high q lossless
music available. No excuse not to with decent copyright protection established.
And industry types need to remember that they are dealing with customers, mostly.
No more silly nonsense like Sony did a few years back, issuing CD''s that put a
root kit on your computer. ONE IDIOTIC INCIDENT like that can destroy years of trying
to establish good will.

You don't know what the hell I believe, and I have never mentioned what anything should cost. I am acutely aware of how much a typical album costs, and I am also aware that based on your comments, you have no idea how to price a download and still make a profit.

Now I will attack royalties as well just to balance this out. Question. who should decide how much royalties to pay a artist for their work? You? As I have said before, hell no not you. You have no idea of how much work and money it takes to create my song, and as such, you will most assuredly under value my song. BMG and ASCAP decide royalty fees, not the record company, and not the artist themselves(so there is no over valuation as well). The artists don't think they are getting enough(and they know how much work it takes to create the product), and consumers(who don't create a thing) think it is too much. I think if most folks were in the shoes of the artists, they would think like they do. And I think you are in that same boat. You want to ***** and complain, but you haven't the faintest idea about how much someone time is worth.

I as an artist do not want jo blow consumer to decide how much my time and effort is worth, which is why a third party makes that decision, not the record company, and not the artists themselves.

I feel like a broken record here. First, the record companies do not establish the price of the download, the vendor does. I have said this so many damn times to you, and you still don't get it. The industry has made some mistakes, but they are not the evil you make them out to be based on your ignorance of the industry. But you are entitled to your opinion (as ignorant as it is), and you have the right to express it.

You don't seem to have an idea about a great many things. You can go to Pandora and type in the exact song you want to hear, and it will play it, so that already exists. You will be able to do that with Sony's Music Unlimited as well. You can go to Pandora, and type in the genre of music, or the artist, and it will created a personalized radio station that plays tunes that you like. So I am not sure what your beef is.

Since you seemed to have the pulse of every human listening desires, why don't you go and create what you think the public wants. This is far better than sitting here complaining about what the record companies will or will not allow. Obviously Sony has taken surveys to try and figure out what the consumer wants, and have now created a business model that gives them what they desire. Instead of complaining, why don't you do the same, or do you just like to emulate a empty wagon going down a bumpy road?

Instead of lecturing me about what you THINK other want, why don't you (since you think you know) gather some investors, and create what you THINK others want? You seem to have all the answers locked up in your brain, why don't you put these ideas to good use?

The thing you don't seem to get is that the music industry is a huge ship. Huge ships are not that nimble, and cannot turn on a dime. The changes in the industry have been pretty rapid, and it takes time to figure out what works in this environment. So far, the downloading model does not appear to work. The streaming model does not make much money, and certainly not enough to continue making albums. The industry is in transition right now, and they are trying to figure out what works and what does not. You don't solve anything until you try something, and that is exactly what the music industry has been trying.

What they are getting for all their tries, is a bunch of complaining, stealing, and a bunch of know it all's who say they have the answers to all of the industry's ills. I say put up or shut up. If you think you have the answers to the music industry's ills, start a company that fills the needs of the consumer. You seem to know it all, so you should make a fortune.

As ignorant as you may believe I am, I know how to price products... That is my area of expertise (Cost Accounting)... What is yours? You're a Studio Engineer? So how does that make you an expert on costing? How does that make you any less ignorant than me? That's like an NBA player claiming to know something about how much tickets should cost, because he is an "industry insider"... Knowing how to dunk a ball into the hoop is not the same as handling the finances for a big game... So acting as if you understand costing and I'm some ignorant fellow is just silly...

Here's the part you don't get: The amount of royalties a producer/artist/songwriter/whoever gets per song could be cut and they could all still end up making more money... High royalties doesn't guarantee money... Also the fact that the artist receives a relative pittance in royalties, means that the question of who gets what percentage of royalties needs to be examined NOT that the overall amount of royalties can't be reduced... I've never suggested that the Artist needs to take a cut in royalties, I've argued about the total amount (the lions share going to the label rather than the artist)...

Anyway, we've reached the point of having to agree to disagree on this topic... You don't think I know anything about the price of music and I feel the same way about you... So rather than it turning into another round of repetition or eventually name-calling, let's just end it... I'm out...

People who are against DRM are children who don't understand the way the world works.
PEOPLE who produce music deserve to get paid just like everybody else. No pay, no work.
The Soviet Union tried that and look at how that turned out.A lot of people who hate DRM
wouldn't work a minute for free themselves.
All that being said, its the responsibility of the industry to make DRM as invisible as possible,
and with decent safeguards against illegal copying established, make high q lossless
music available. No excuse not to with decent copyright protection established.
And industry types need to remember that they are dealing with customers, mostly.
No more silly nonsense like Sony did a few years back, issuing CD''s that put a
root kit on your computer. ONE IDIOTIC INCIDENT like that can destroy years of trying
to establish good will.

I'll tie this in here as I am unable to edit my final post in this thread:

I've never said that artists shouldn't get paid (or that they shouldn't make an obscene amount of money whenever possible)... DRM is one way to protect your work, but not the best IMO... Traditional DRM is old school thinking and understandbly why you believe it to be the solution... I'm from an entirely different generation from you and Sir T, so my views on the matter are radically different... I've seen friends who were Torrent Lovers move from that to just streaming movies. TV and Music from websites (no downloading and retaining copies)... Streaming the content virtually eliminates the need for DRM as the consumer doesn't own and can't distribute copies...

FOR THE RECORD: Just in case anyone thought otherwise, I'm not one of those socialist (real socialists) or jealous types who believes that artists, etc make too much money and should sponsor the public's desire for free content... Sir T, I know you work hard for your money and clearly must have incredible talent to reach where you are and make the money you must make... My aim is not to tell you how much money you should earn... I just feel that the best way to make money is through high sales volume with low prices rather than lower sales volume with higher prices... Just look at how many people listen to music in record levels based on being able to pirate music on MP3, that shows that free / low prices increases demand for music substantially... So the question must simply be how to capitalize on that... Whether I sell 1,000 albums at a profit of $10 per album or 10,000 albums at a profit of $1 per album, I still make the same $10,000... I believe the former is more inline with what is currently occurring in the industry, while the latter is closer to what the market wants... I also believe that with the latter, the industry would sell more like 15,000 albums at a profit of $1 each, thus increasing overall profits from $10,000 to $15,000, all despite a major drop in the price of each album... I believe streaming services are the ultimate expression of that model (whether free with advertising or a cheap unlimited package)... While there are services that offer streaming, the real question is how much do they pay in royalties? So are they able to offer truly attractive prices or equivalent quality free services? All discussions I've read on the issue suggest Pandora and Rhapsody struggle with fees, which would clearly make streaming unappealing to other parties who would want to enter that market.... For the industry to really make money on streaming services they need to rethink their approach, rather than try and treat it like they did album sales...

I'll tie this in here as I am unable to edit my final post in this thread:

I've never said that artists shouldn't get paid (or that they shouldn't make an obscene amount of money whenever possible)... DRM is one way to protect your work, but not the best IMO... Traditional DRM is old school thinking and understandbly why you believe it to be the solution... I'm from an entirely different generation from you and Sir T, so my views on the matter are radically different... I've seen friends who were Torrent Lovers move from that to just streaming movies. TV and Music from websites (no downloading and retaining copies)... Streaming the content virtually eliminates the need for DRM as the consumer doesn't own and can't distribute copies...

FOR THE RECORD: Just in case anyone thought otherwise, I'm not one of those socialist (real socialists) or jealous types who believes that artists, etc make too much money and should sponsor the public's desire for free content... Sir T, I know you work hard for your money and clearly must have incredible talent to reach where you are and make the money you must make... My aim is not to tell you how much money you should earn... I just feel that the best way to make money is through high sales volume with low prices rather than lower sales volume with higher prices... Just look at how many people listen to music in record levels based on being able to pirate music on MP3, that shows that free / low prices increases demand for music substantially... So the question must simply be how to capitalize on that... Whether I sell 1,000 albums at a profit of $10 per album or 10,000 albums at a profit of $1 per album, I still make the same $10,000... I believe the former is more inline with what is currently occurring in the industry, while the latter is closer to what the market wants... I also believe that with the latter, the industry would sell more like 15,000 albums at a profit of $1 each, thus increasing overall profits from $10,000 to $15,000, all despite a major drop in the price of each album... I believe streaming services are the ultimate expression of that model (whether free with advertising or a cheap unlimited package)... While there are services that offer streaming, the real question is how much do they pay in royalties? So are they able to offer truly attractive prices or equivalent quality free services? All discussions I've read on the issue suggest Pandora and Rhapsody struggle with fees, which would clearly make streaming unappealing to other parties who would want to enter that market.... For the industry to really make money on streaming services they need to rethink their approach, rather than try and treat it like they did album sales...

Anyway, time will tell what the solution to this situation is...

You are from the "younger" generation, and that does scare me. What are they teaching
you in school?
SURE if every group was the Beatles, you could sell zillions for cheap, but not every group
is that popular. Besides, record companies have shown that they would much rather sell
an CD that costs two bucks to make (including everything) for 20 bucks, sell fewer,
and still make a boatload of money, no observation that they would want to change that for the streaming world. Also, even if a product is streamed it is still open to theft, and
has to be protected.
Also, you seem to think that the studios concern is a good product at the lowest price,
when their main interest is shoveling crap by the ton at the highest price the market will bear. Keeping a high revenue stream is in their interests, keeps them in sports
cars, women, MALIBU beach houses, crank and crack.
I CERTAINLY hope that others from "your" generation are not as naive as yourself.

You are from the "younger" generation, and that does scare me. What are they teaching
you in school?
SURE if every group was the Beatles, you could sell zillions for cheap, but not every group
is that popular. Besides, record companies have shown that they would much rather sell
an CD that costs two bucks to make (including everything) for 20 bucks, sell fewer,
and still make a boatload of money, no observation that they would want to change that for the streaming world. Also, even if a product is streamed it is still open to theft, and
has to be protected.
Also, you seem to think that the studios concern is a good product at the lowest price,
when their main interest is shoveling crap by the ton at the highest price the market will bear. Keeping a high revenue stream is in their interests, keeps them in sports
cars, women, MALIBU beach houses, crank and crack.
I CERTAINLY hope that others from "your" generation are not as naive as yourself.

I'm not getting what you think makes me naive in that point... I totally agree with your assessment of what studios want...

I've been talking about what the market wants, and simple economics... Music sales are clearly price elastic (that's what my generation learned in school - look up the term if you don't know it, and what I've said about higher volume and lower prices will make sense to you - Also, it doesn't require any group to sell like the Beatles did, way back in the day, to make money)...

Anyway, as I'd really like to move on from this debate I'll leave it here... So you can have the last word about my 'naivety' or whatever you believe, but my views are all based on a knowledge of cost accounting and economics... I believe the music industry is simply too stuck in their ways to make real change... It's about what they'd prefer to do (sell high priced CDs as you said) than what the market wants (which what probably make them a lot more money)...

You are from the "younger" generation, and that does scare me. What are they teaching
you in school?
SURE if every group was the Beatles, you could sell zillions for cheap, but not every group
is that popular. Besides, record companies have shown that they would much rather sell
an CD that costs two bucks to make (including everything) for 20 bucks, sell fewer,
and still make a boatload of money, no observation that they would want to change that for the streaming world. Also, even if a product is streamed it is still open to theft, and
has to be protected.
Also, you seem to think that the studios concern is a good product at the lowest price,
when their main interest is shoveling crap by the ton at the highest price the market will bear. Keeping a high revenue stream is in their interests, keeps them in sports
cars, women, MALIBU beach houses, crank and crack.
I CERTAINLY hope that others from "your" generation are not as naive as yourself.

That's a bit of a counterproductive pot of poison. Perhaps the next time you're making your rounds stop by the nurse's station and have her Google "economies of scale". An artist would not have to sell numbers like the Beatles in order to realize a greater profit. It really is quite simple, but this has clearly devolved into an argument of the paradigm versus the particular--that is, what should be as opposed to what is.

Of course the industry wants to make more money for less work. Hell, I want to make more money for less work but that's not necessarily possible or even the best thing for me in either short term or long term strategizing.

Beyond the basic mathematical issue it would be best for all parties if more units move into the marketplace. More units equals more promotion, a stir of word-of-mouth, and subsequent secondary and tertiary revenue components...better ticket sales, shirt and paraphenalia sales, additional audio/video product marketing. It would offer an overall bigger pie from which everyone could draw a piece.

Much ado about nothing...you know the rest.

So, I broke into the palace
With a sponge and a rusty spanner
She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

As ignorant as you may believe I am, I know how to price products... That is my area of expertise (Cost Accounting)..

The fact that you are a cost accountant does not mean a damn thing if you are not doing it within the music industry. A title means nothing if the experience is not directly applicable to the industry it is tied to.

. What is yours? You're a Studio Engineer? So how does that make you an expert on costing?

This is why you should never assume that you really know about somebody. Studio engineer..yes. I have also recorded 6 gospel albums with my cousins(so artist would fit in nicely) and have produced 10 jazz/gospel albums. As a producer, I was in charge of the budget for production. I worked with each project from start to distribution, so I know exactly what it cost to produce and distribute an album. While no expert, it does give me a very long leg up on you on this issue.

How does that make you any less ignorant than me? That's like an NBA player claiming to know something about how much tickets should cost, because he is an "industry insider"... Knowing how to dunk a ball into the hoop is not the same as handling the finances for a big game... So acting as if you understand costing and I'm some ignorant fellow is just silly...

No, what is silly is when you use a title that makes it seem that you know what you are talking about, but it is not connected to the topic at hand. Besides, my experience within the industry is not just cursory like you are attempting to angle it.

Here's the part you don't get: The amount of royalties a producer/artist/songwriter/whoever gets per song could be cut and they could all still end up making more money... High royalties doesn't guarantee money..

How do you know this, you don't even know what the royalty is on a song. You are just making $hit up. You cannot begin to cut something if you don't even know what the cost is. Now that is silly as well. There is a difference between high royalties, and fair royalties, you don't even know which is applicable here. Specifics count, and you are woefully lacking in that area. You can't tell me I don't get something, when you haven't a firm grasp on it yourself.

. Also the fact that the artist receives a relative pittance in royalties, means that the question of who gets what percentage of royalties needs to be examined NOT that the overall amount of royalties can't be reduced... I've never suggested that the Artist needs to take a cut in royalties, I've argued about the total amount (the lions share going to the label rather than the artist)...

Here is where your ignorance kicks in. The song writers get the royalties, not the label. The label gets the royalties only when the song writer's copyright expires if the contract signed turns the rights over to them after the artists has passed. Royalties only go to the song writers, not the distributer of the album So do you still want to advance the theory that you know what you are talking about?

Anyway, we've reached the point of having to agree to disagree on this topic... You don't think I know anything about the price of music and I feel the same way about you... So rather than it turning into another round of repetition or eventually name-calling, let's just end it... I'm out...

It is really smart to stay out of things that you have no knowledge of, and this is one of them.

This is why you should never assume that you really know about somebody. Studio engineer..yes. I have also recorded 6 gospel albums with my cousins(so artist would fit in nicely) and have produced 10 jazz/gospel albums. As a producer, I was in charge of the budget for production. I worked with each project from start to distribution, so I know exactly what it cost to produce and distribute an album. While no expert, it does give me a very long leg up on you on this issue.

So you where in charge of the budget for a few albums and that means you understand costing and economics to a degree greater than I do? OK I think that says it all...

I will defer to your greater understanding of the industry... Good luck with your current strategies of getting my generation to purchase content the way you want...

So you where in charge of the budget for a few albums and that means you understand costing and economics to a degree greater than I do? OK I think that says it all...

I will defer to your greater understanding of the industry... Good luck with your current strategies of getting my generation to purchase content the way you want...

Why don't you guys give it a rest? You are destined to disagree.

I'm a little close to Ajani's position on this. First, "the industry" is underestimating consumer demand flexibilty, i.e. there would be a relatively large volume increase in case of a significant price decrease. Seconding it is far cheaper to download then distribute a physical CD; (it is simply delusional not to recognized this fact).

I'm a little close to Ajani's position on this. First, "the industry" is underestimating consumer demand flexibilty, i.e. there would be a relatively large volume increase in case of a significant price decrease. Seconding it is far cheaper to download then distribute a physical CD; (it is simply delusional not to recognized this fact).

I am finished with the debate on the Music Industry... I'm just really amused that Sir T thinks that he has a basis for dismissing my opinion on the matter... Somehow his experience in the industry makes his opinion hold weight, while my expertise in costing is meaningless because I'm not in the music industry...

Certainly I can accept that a Cost Accounting Expert in the industry would have an advantage over me in these discussions, but I've yet to see Sir T (Studio Engineer) say anything that would lead me to the opinion that he has a better command of the subject than I do...

I've corrected enough ridiculously incorrect budgets and costings from persons with decades of experience in their respective industries (but no accounting experience), to know that if you don't understand the fundamentals involved in the process, then it doesn't matter how many wrong budgets you've prepared over the years...

I wonder if Sir T would also tell Lawyers that he has a better understanding of Copyright laws than they do, because of his music industry experience...

Anyway, you are right... I do know better than to continue engaging in a pointless debate with the the infallible Sir T...